ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Who's Ready for Hillary?

Updated on October 28, 2015

Twenty-sixteen will hold the most significant presidential election in my lifetime. Of course, this claim is made every four years, and it’s rarely, if ever, true. While all presidencies are certainly relevant in their time, relatively few are memorable in retrospect. Washington was numero uno. Jackson led a genocide. Lincoln freed the slaves. But for every JFK or FDR, there’s five Franklin Pierce/Millard Fillmore-types.

So why is this particular election so meaningful? For starters, odds are (ask Vegas) that we will at long last remedy the national disgrace of having never elected a female leader, nearly a century after the 19th Amendment established the rights of women to vote. However, that alone is certainly not reason enough to vote for Hillary. After all, this was also the case in 2008, and Carly Fiorina is running for the Republican nomination, if we're only interested in checking boxes.

NC Gov Sam Brownback
NC Gov Sam Brownback

This coming election is the most important of my lifetime, because of the nine Supreme Court Justices, four - Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, & Scalia – will be at least 78 years of age by election night ‘16. Ronald Reagan did a lot of damage to this country during his eight years in office. From fundamentally restructuring our tax code in order to redistribute more and more wealth to the wealthy (which we still haven't fixed), to union-busting, to ramping up the war on drugs, and demonizing and fear-mongering welfare queens and strapping young bucks in blatant dog-whistle attacks, to marrying evangelicals to the republican party, to illegally selling arms to terrorists, and slow-footing his response to AIDS because he thought it was a gay thing. But Reagan-appointee Antonin Scalia has been dragging this country rightward from the highest bench for going-on 30 years now. Reagan also happens to be the last president to have more than two justices confirmed, three decades ago.

If President Ted Cruz were to be sworn in in January, 2017, we could very well have seven conservatives on the court by the end of his administration. Bye-bye reproductive rights. Bye-bye voting rights. Bye-bye marriage equality. And that’s just what the SCOTUS would do. If conservatives held a firm grasp on all three branches of government, including both chambers of congress, and roughly two-thirds of the states? I’ve seen what conservatives have done to Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Kansas - we'd be in a bad way.

That said, an anti-republican case is not necessarily a pro-Hillary one. After all, President Bernie Sanders would nominate reasonably similar justices to Hillary, given the opportunity. But Hillary is perhaps both the most widely anticipated front-runner, and most qualified candidate, in memory.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens
Ambassador Christopher Stevens

Before serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton was Senator Clinton of New York. She’s done amazing work for charity with the Clinton Global Foundation. Before she was a very prominent First Lady (her Women's Rights Are Human Rights speech was quite memorable), she was…also first lady, of Arkansas. Hillary was on the board of (Arkansas based) Wal-Mart. She was the first female partner at Rose Law, was on the Yale Law Review editorial board, and gave the first commencement speech by a student at Wellesley College, where she was president of the young republicans as a freshman.

Hillary Clinton is, more than anything else, a politician. She is the establishment. Her largest contributors are financial institutions. She has spent her years since State stroking the egos of banksters for hundreds of thousands a pop. She is on the record stating that she would not support reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. She summed it up best in the initial democratic primary debate – “I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York.” Indeed.

After all, it was Bill Clinton who was president when Glass-Steagall was repealed in the first place, undoing 60 years of sound financial regulatory policy, laying the groundwork for the Great Recession. Bill worked with Republicans to boot millions of poor folks off of the welfare rolls, to harass the LGBTQ community with DOMA, to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives with the 1994 crime bill. While Bill says he's sorry for some of that now, and Hillary didn’t cast any of those votes or sign any of those laws, she was publicly vocal and supportive a the time.

Hillary is among the most hawkish of politicians, especially among democrats. She lost to Obama in '08, partly because of his repeated attacks on her vote on the Iraq war. Her war drums bang in unison with Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer, with Kelly Ayotte and John McCain.

#Benghazi! was a failure, as with our Libya policy writ large. Libya was supposed to be Hillary’s pet project, her main achievement in her time at State, her go-to foreign policy talking point. They all wanted Muammar Gaddafi out, but Republicans were calling for troops on the ground, which turned out to be entirely unnecessary. Libya held free elections. Success! Then four Americans were killed in an attack on our consulate (CIA outpost, actually), which conservatives turned into the political football that is #Benghazi!

Conservatives have been shouting #Benghazi! to each other for years now, without being able to coherently explain to anyone else what the scandal part is supposed to be. After nine congressional investigations thus far, conservative politicians and aides (including Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy) are finally starting to publicly admit what we’ve known all along, that the #Benghazi! hearings are nothing more than a tax-payer funded fishing trip meant to derail Hillary’s presidential aspirations. Following Hillary’s 11-hour testimony, select committee chair Trey Gowdy admitted that he had learned nothing new. Gowdy and Co. have screwed up #Benghazi! so thoroughly, that Hillary suddenly seems the sympathetic figure in comparison. What remains to be seen, is whether she will be able to convince the voting public to associate the partisanship of the investigations, with the (so-far) unrelated emails exposed therein.

In an attempt to convince progressives that she shares their concerns, Hillary's been uttering platitudes for months now. She’s suddenly against the terrible TPP, despite publicly supporting it dozens of times, to the point of calling it the gold standard of trade deals. She’s suddenly opposed to the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline. She's talked up criminal justice reform, debt-free college…

So why then, did I replace my Elizabeth Warren 2016 bumper sticker with a Feel the Bern 2016 model? Because Bernie Sanders’ progressive bonifides are practically unassailable. He has been preaching the same populist message for 40 years in politics. Populism is, by definition, popular. Bernie brings the crowds. Bernie doesn’t talk like a politician, his responses are substantive and policy-driven. He doesn’t evade or obfuscate. Bernie is not a calculating establishmentarian hack who is running to the left for the primary, before veering back to the center for the general. He’s not even a democrat! He’s a self-described democratic socialist, who is only teaming with democrats for the party infrastructure (read, $) necessary to win the presidency. Bernie wants to shout his populist message from the proverbial rooftops, in order to drive up voter-turnout of people of who know that the political machine, filled with corporatists like Hillary Clinton, cater only to the wealthy donor-class. Bernie wants to turn our oligarchy back into the democracy that it was supposed to be.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 18 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      I like to think I'm ready for a lot of things, changes and individuals, of which Hillary is not one of them.

      You did a marvelous job here, explaining this woman's political history and (accomplishments??) If I read you correctly, our opinions are similar.

      I refuse to believe that Trey Gowdy has not done a good thing. Besides, the investigation is not quite completed. I am one who has not succumbed to sympathy for "poor Hillary.".....never have, never will.

      I'm waiting and watching patiently for the Hillary-ites to wake from their fantasies and trance. Hoping they will finally see her and her lies, manipulations and sob stories for all it truly is. BUNK!

      I cannot think of a more corrupt team as Bill & Hillary and am continually amazed at the blindness and denial.

      Thank you for this fascinating read. Peace, Paula

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 18 months ago from Orange County California

      The disgrace of not putting a woman into the executive office goes to the Democrats.

      The republicans put Sarah Palin as a VP candidate in 2008, and the democrats made a mockery of putting her for vp.

      At the same time, the democratic party had the opportunity to stand behind the well known, and twice elected US Senator for NY as their candidate for president. They chose to back an unknown Senator from Illinois.

      Then, after making sure that Clinton wouldn't be their presidential candidate, the democratic party didn't even back her as a VP candidate under the unknown Presidential candidate. They instead went with an old white dude.

      So what is so different now that Hillary Clinton is the presidential front runner for the democrats. Is the country so hungry that we want to heat up 8 year old left overs and serve that as the main dish for the country to swallow.

      Hillary Clinton dumped the people of NY in her second term as their senator, and you think that is a good thing.

      She has shown no loyalty to her voters, and now she shows no loyalty to her country and its people.

      The office of the United States President should be for the best candidate period. The candidates for the presidency are not to be judged by the race, color or gender, but on the qualities of being president. In that respect, Hillary Clinton doesn't possess the necessary qualities to be our president.

    • Justin Earick profile image
      Author

      Justin Earick 18 months ago from Tacoma, WA

      A few points. First, blaming democrats for our country never having elected a female president, bc of Sarah Palin, makes no sense whatsoever. She was running for VP, not leader of the free world, those are different things entirely. You're changing the subject simply to project blame. And if we're playing the blame game on that subject, yet conservatives fail to support Fiorina in the primary, and go against Hillary (assuming she's the nominee) in the general - who will you blame then? Oh, and to talk about Hillary dumping NYers, bc she was appointed for Sec. of State - when your homie Palin quit on Alaska to work at Faux News? That's either complete cognitive dissonance, or simple and blatant projection. Either way, very odd positions to take, brad.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 18 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      whoa!! Justin: 5----brad: Zero.

      Tacoma knocks OC for a loop! OFF the podium!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 18 months ago from Orange County California

      Justin and Fph

      The executive office is the executive office.

      And the democrats shut Hillary out of both of them.

      If you read any of my hubs, you would know that I don't follow either party, but that doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion about either party.

      Secretary of State is not a VP.

      I think that once again, you never read my hubs, as I don't think it is right for any of the politicians to dump their obligations of their current office in favor of getting a new job.

      The whole system of politicians campaigning for another job is what caused the congress to fail in 2008. While, the previous 18 months before the economic meltdown, there were so many senators running for the presidency. The entire incumbent congress was campaigning for their party. The result was no one in congress was doing their job.

      Yes, all the politicians do that, but that doesn't make it right.

      You have not made one cogent argument on my previous comment.

      fph

      Tell me how Justin made a cogent argument.

      This wasn't a personal comment, and yet you want to make it personal, and some form of entertainment.

      Make your own arguments instead of being a cheerleader.

      -----

      As long as people continue to treat their political party as a sports team, the country will continue to decline.

      Neither party has had the solution, and to think so disagrees with history.

      The country has been in decline since the fake oil shortages of the 1970s, and neither party has moved the country forward.

      Both parties have been in control at one time and another, and all they do is try to undue what the other party did when they were in control.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 18 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      I chose not to comment to you. I argue when I feel a need and I will cheerlead when I damned well please. YOU haven't a single right to suggest to me what I should or should not do, when or with whom. Just who the HELL do you think you are? You come off as a pompous, angry narcissist. I do not interact with your type and I'll thank you to NOT direct your snide comments at me. Period the end. You have added NOTHING to what I'm well aware of, politically. Preach elsewhere. There may be someone who actually cares what you think.

      I was forming my own opinions and directing my own life when you were being potty-trained.

      This is not the first time you have made a failed attempt at trying to throw your weight around with me....but it IS the last time. Once more Sir Brad and I SHALL flag you for harassment. I do NOT tolerate bullying. STOP immediately. Do not try my patience.

    • Justin Earick profile image
      Author

      Justin Earick 18 months ago from Tacoma, WA

      Don't know or care anything about your hubs, only responding to the ridiculous arguments made here. Obama chose Biden for VP, not "democrats." That is plainly obvious. Secretary of state is not VP? Who is saying that they are the same? Certainly not me. You are claiming that the presidency and the vice presidency are the same thing. Again, patently false. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as the 2008 election causing the Great Recession, that's completely insane. I honestly have not idea how your brain connects such oddly unrelated dots, though it's pretty interesting to witness the pseudo-schizophrenic results...

    • Kathleen Cochran profile image

      Kathleen Cochran 18 months ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      I continue to be amazed at how Americans can look at a zebra and half see a white animal with black stripes and half see a black animal with white stripes. And nothing will change their conviction that they are right and the other half is wrong. What I don't seem to get is why the other opinion makes each side so angry.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 18 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Kathleen, For the record please. I will defend myself when attacked and/or unnecessarily treated shabbily by someone who insists they're the ONLY person alive with the 100% accurate facts/opinions. An individual with a different slant on anything certainly does NOT anger me.

      I am always open and tolerant of "differences."

      However, I do not make a habit of shying away in fear or defeat when a rude, haughty, personal attack is made. "Reporting" is nonsense and most often futile. I'm quite capable of handling rude bullies in my own way.

      I understand what you are saying, Kathleen, but for me it is not "anger" that fuels my response. Quite simply, I do not and will not subject myself to being insulted nor knocked around by anyone.

      It's high time that the vast assortment of delusional Mightier than Thou individuals be redirected. How anyone else deals with these situations is their business. I speak for myself only.

      Fortunately, I encounter these pathetic souls very seldom. Then I REMEMBER them and simply avoid them. Thank you for your thoughts.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 17 months ago from Ohio, USA

      "From fundamentally restructuring our tax code in order to redistribute more and more wealth to the wealthy..."

      Top 5% of earners pay 60% of Federal income tax. Bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the Federal income tax.

      Hmm...

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 17 months ago from Ohio, USA

      "The disgrace of not putting a woman into the executive office goes to the Democrats."

      There's a tempest in a teapot. Heaven forbid the most qualified person gets that job.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 17 months ago from Orange County California

      nicomp

      I agree but we usually only have the choice of the lesser evil.

      In 2008, the party backed Obama and she was the more qualified choice.

      Then I guess, choosing her as VP would be a tougher over the long term senator Biden.

      The democrats picked color over gender. Now, in this election they are going to pick up on gender

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 17 months ago from Orange County California

      nicomp

      What you said about the income tax is true, but even though the rich pay more than the rest of the taxpayers, they still are able to hide, defer, deduct, credit or use any of the thousands of loopholes in the Internal Revenue Code.

      That is how the billionaires have been able to double their wealth since 2008.

      The Internal Revenue Code was stripped for the average wage earner in the 1986 Tax Reform Act. And, the 7.5% medical deduction threshold has been recently increased to 10%. That is how much faith that congress has in Obamacare cutting medical costs.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 17 months ago from Ohio, USA

      "That is how the billionaires have been able to double their wealth since 2008."

      Good. I'm happy for them.

      You're simply jealous and uninformed. You want what they have and you're not willing to work for it.

      The wealth of all our billionaires together would run the government for less than one week. You could confiscate all of it tomorrow and nothing would change. All you're doing is perpetuating the War On The Rich.

      " And, the 7.5% medical deduction threshold has been recently increased to 10%."

      That is simply the government giving a little more of our money back to us. They are letting us keep a little more of what we already earned. That's Bernie Sanders logic. No one's life will be improved by that pittance.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 17 months ago from Orange County California

      nicomp

      You didn't understand any of my comment.

    • nicomp profile image

      nicomp really 17 months ago from Ohio, USA

      @Brand, probaly not. :-(

    Click to Rate This Article